Friday, November 30, 2012

The Linemakers on Sporting News are expecting Jack Morris to receive the necessary 75 percent of the votes for enshrinement into the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, N.Y., in 2013. In fact, Morris is considered a cinch to make it, and has been installed by The Linemakers at -500 to be voted in by the Baseball Writers.

This will be Morris’ 14th year on the ballot. He compiled a 254-186 record with 2,478 strikeouts over 18 big league seasons, which probably should have been good enough for him to get in already. But as players from the steroid era start to litter the ballots, some of the players from the past are getting much more favorable looks. Bert Blyleven, for example, finally got his call in 2011.

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

I don't know a damned thing about gambling but these things get posted from time to time whether it's for teams or players or whatever. It seems to me that the sweet spot is somewhere between 8-1 and 15-1 as far as being "good bets" regardless of what the subject is. I don't know if that holds true for gamblers but I find myself drawn to that range whenever I read a piece like this.

I don't know a damned thing about gambling but these things get posted from time to time whether it's for teams or players or whatever. It seems to me that the sweet spot is somewhere between 8-1 and 15-1 as far as being "good bets" regardless of what the subject is. I don't know if that holds true for gamblers but I find myself drawn to that range whenever I read a piece like this.

in horse racing there is a sweet spot on the Return On INvestment line that corresponds to the number of horses in the field. I.e. in a 7 horse field there is a slight peak for a 7:1 horse. Mind you, in all horse betting there is a negative ROI due to the house take. However on the whole it gets minimized with a 7;1 in a 7 horse field. So the ROI might be 95% on average. Still losing in the long haul, but pretty good by horse player standards.

What's the maximum number of voters? There were 543 ballots submitted in 2008, 539 ballots in both 2009 and 2010, 581 ballots in 2011, and 573 last year. On an atypical ballot amid atypical pissed-offness, with writers voting against other writers as much as they're voting for players, I have the feeling that Jack Morris can't fully rely on the traditional "let's get 'im over the hump, boys!" momentum and bonhomie.

But I also have the concurrent feeling that Morris' chances would improve if there's a decent amount of irregular old school voters who might be roused from their crypts to rise up against the monsters Barry and Roger. Morris needs 50 extra votes based on the 2011-12 ballot count. If 25 guys who haven't voted much lately react to the angry hubbub and turn out, I'm speculating that they'd likely be a good fit for his constituency.

Not sure why Piazza would do better in his 1st year on the ballot than Bagwell in his 2nd. Bagwell received 56% of the vote last year, and should get an increase from those voters who couldn't see him as 1st Ballot material. On the PED issue, there is no real evidence on either, but Piazza has the burden of backne, FWIW, so how do the anti-PED absolutists vote against Bagwell but for Piazza?

B-R converts their stats to a neutral environment with a run environment of 4.42 r/g.

In that environment Clemens converts to 4888 innings at a 3.10 ERA (1683 ER).

Morris converts to 3814 innings of a 4.28 ERA (1815 ER).

If we have Clemens pitch the first 3814 innings of his career at Morris's rate, in order to then start to bring Clemens's final numbers down towards Morris's level Clemens would have to pitch the remaining 1,074 innings of his career without giving up an earned run. So, essentially, 119 shutouts in a row.

But wait - that still doesn't bring him close to Morris's level, because Morris will _still_ have allowed 132 more runs at that point.

Ladies and Gentleman, the odds for what the BBWAA, armed with this information, is going to do:

As much as I agree with you on steroids and HOF admission I think irrelevant is too strong. I think the next few years will be an aberration, a blip, that stains the HOF, damages it even, but does not destroy it.

Now the inductions without Bonds, et al will be greatly diminished but not irrelevant because it still holds a place in America's Baseball consciousness. Though if they admit Morris and only Morris, then yeah this year's induction is irrelevant and a travesty.

The HOF's been dead to me since it spent years and years hosing Ron Santo, so this odds list just gives me a further sense of vindication. I know who the best players I've ever seen are, and I don't need a bunch of sportswriter hacks or crotchety former baseball players to validate my views for me.

There's no way that Morris is actually overwhelmingly likely to make the Hall this year, is there? He only got 66.7% of the vote last year on a very weak ballot. My sense is that most of the militant anti-PED voters were already Morris supporters, so he doesn't seem to have a lot to gain from the ballot being stacked with 'roiders. It would be one thing if he were obviously the best clean candidate, but he isn't. And there's a pretty sizable number of more-statheady writers who will never vote for him. I guess I'm waiting for Chris Jaffe to weigh in with his predictions, which are truly authoritative, but I strongly suspect he wouldn't give Morris such good odds.

Not sure why Piazza would do better in his 1st year on the ballot than Bagwell in his 2nd. Bagwell received 56% of the vote last year, and should get an increase from those voters who couldn't see him as 1st Ballot material. On the PED issue, there is no real evidence on either, but Piazza has the burden of backne, FWIW, so how do the anti-PED absolutists vote against Bagwell but for Piazza?

This is Bagwell's third year. He jumped from 41 percent to 56 percent between Year 1 and 2. I have no idea what to expect this year with him (or most anyone, for that matter, but I wouldn't be surprised by a big dip or a big climb in his case).

I think the listed odds are high for everyone but Biggio. Morris was way too many votes away in last year's election to be at 1:5, and most of those guys at the bottom have absolutely no chance to be elected this year.

Joke though the HOF is, is Morris *really* the only guy more likely than not to be selected this year, even granting all the "OMG TEH STERIODS" discounts that'll be applied to Bonds, Clemens, etc.? Biggio and Piazza are less than even money? Really?

Joke though the HOF is, is Morris *really* the only guy more likely than not to be selected this year, even granting all the "OMG TEH STERIODS" discounts that'll be applied to Bonds, Clemens, etc.? Biggio and Piazza are less than even money? Really?

I'd put Morris and Biggio at around even money, the rest below. Piazza and Bagwell are the only other candidates who can make a push, but I'd be surprised if either of them get there.

Though if they admit Morris and only Morris, then yeah this year's induction is irrelevant and a travesty.

But a nice statement about the 80s nonetheless. What do you think his induction song should be? "Come on Eileen," "Panama," "Take on Me," or how about "Let's Go Crazy," the #1 song in the land when he toyed with the Padres in Game 4 of the 1984 World Series?

-I think Morris is more likely than not to get inducted, but if you gave me 4-to-1 odds on Morris missing out, I'd lay a bet down.

-Bagwell at 45-55% is way low for a projection. He was 56% last year, up from 42% his first time, and I'll be surprised if he loses votes. I'd guess Bagwell gets to 60-65%.

Not sure why Piazza would do better in his 1st year on the ballot than Bagwell in his 2nd.

To an uninformed voter, Bagwell's Hall of Fame case is entirely non-obvious. He has few milestones, and a big chunk of his value is tied up in walks, park effects, non-HR power, baserunning, and defense. I expect quite a few of the voters who didn't pick Bagwell in his first year did so because they had no idea how great he was.

That won't happen with Piazza. To anyone who paid attention to baseball in the last two decades or glances at a stat page tomorrow, Piazza is a Hall of Famer on the merits. I figure Piazza should lose most of the voters who won't choose Bagwell on spurious PED grounds, but he should get most all of Bagwell's current voters. I'd guess 60-70% for Piazza, and 80% wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Unusual as it may be, SBB is right. Most people don't want Bonds, Clemens, and co. in the HOF. Pete Rose's omission gets the HOF a lot of attention and only diminishes it relevancy in the eyes of a small number of people. I imagine the stuff with Bonds and Clemens will work out more or less the same way, with the difference being that I expect the 'roiders to get in in the not so distant future.

As far as this vote hurting the HOF's credibility in the stat world, I don't think many of us had a ton of respect for them to begin with.

Has there been polling on this? My intuition is that it's wrong. It seems likely that a small majority of BBWAA voters don't want them in, but I'm skeptical it's a majority of fans.

I'm guessing that with every year that Bonds and Clemens aren't inducted, more and more people will realize they ought to be in the Hall. I'm thinking of something like a five year process. But of course I'm making that up entirely.

-Bagwell at 45-55% is way low for a projection. He was 56% last year, up from 42% his first time, and I'll be surprised if he loses votes. I'd guess Bagwell gets to 60-65%.

But you're viewing him in isolation, as if he's a normal candidate in a normal year, steroids "tainted" though he may be. But I think this is wrong, and he's going to get swept up in the deluge of the other steroids players, and the analysis will be, "Ok, he's probably a HOFer, but he probably used steroids." IOW I think the increase he'd have gotten in a normal year is offset by the decrease he'll get due to being One Of The Steroids Players On The Ballot.

IOW I think the increase he'd have gotten in a normal year is offset by the decrease he'll get due to being One Of The Steroids Players On The Ballot.

This is obviously all speculative, but I think the effect will go the other way.

We're already seeing a trend of writers recognizing that the full PED ban is untenable. I think there will be some previous non-Bagwell voters who cast a ballot for Bonds or Clemens, and it will be harder for them to hold to a stand against Bagwell.

The other issue, with Bagwell, is that his voting history is wholly dissimilar from the steroids guys. McGwire has seen no movement, while Bagwell had a second-year surge reminiscent of Barry Larkin and Ryne Sandberg. I think a lot of people who haven't voted for Bagwell aren't doing so because of 'roids, but because they still haven't figured out what a great player Bagwell was. His stats are underwhelming at face value - you have to know a bit about baseball and do a bit of work to recognize Bagwell as the slam-dunk HoFer that he is. I think we'll see some more of that, too.

Unusual as it may be, SBB is right. Most people don't want Bonds, Clemens, and co. in the HOF. Pete Rose's omission gets the HOF a lot of attention and only diminishes it relevancy in the eyes of a small number of people. I imagine the stuff with Bonds and Clemens will work out more or less the same way, with the difference being that I expect the 'roiders to get in in the not so distant future.

As far as this vote hurting the HOF's credibility in the stat world, I don't think many of us had a ton of respect for them to begin with.

People probably do want Biggio/Piazza/Bagwell in the HoF, though. And they certainly want to see some enshrinees who have played ball since the strike.

The HOF's been dead to me since it spent years and years hosing Ron Santo, so this odds list just gives me a further sense of vindication. I know who the best players I've ever seen are, and I don't need a bunch of sportswriter hacks or crotchety former baseball players to validate my views for me.

I agree with the above quote, and I thought that it was worth repeating.

Sans steroid backlash, this would be a bad year for almost everybody on the ballot as Bonds and Clemens would be near-unanimous and you'd have Biggio and Morris (and maybe others) vying for a 3rd induction spot and both probably getting at least 65-70%. That would be bad news for Bagwell, Raines and the others.

But Bonds and Clemens aren't gonna be anywhere near unanimous and probably lucky to hit 50%. That makes this a deep but weak ballot and Morris and Bagwell (and maybe others) will likely continue to advance a bit.

these guys are all gonna be hall of famers at some point. if you go back to the election 50 years ago, 19 out of the top 21 vote-getters are now in the hall of fame. if you go back 40 years, it's 14 out of the top 17. if you go back 30 years it's 12/13. go back 20 years and it's 6/7. 10 years and it's 7/9.

i mean, seriously, the last few elections have seen the elections of andre dawson, jim rice, goose goosage and bruce sutter. these aren't exactly inner-circle types of guys, and yet, they're in. maybe jack morris gets added to that list this year, or maybe he doesn't, but at some point, he too is getting in the hall of fame - if not this year, then next. and if not next, well, if recent history holds i'm sure his family will enjoy his election the year after he passes away.

i guess these circumstances are somewhat different, but just by the numbers, on last year's ballot, there were 4 guys who were unelected, but who were above the threshold by measure of bill james' hall of fame monitor and hall of fame standards. those guys -- jeff bagwell, edgar martinez, larry walker, and rafael palmeiro -- would have been surefire selections without being tainted by the era.

but since they haven't gotten in, they're still on the ballot, and because of that, there's quite a logjam beginning to pile up. this year, you're adding bonds, clemens, piazza, biggio, and sosa to that queue. and the next year, you add maddux, thomas, mussina, glavine, and kent. the year after, you add johnson, sheffield, and martinez.

and the thing is, these aren't just guys who were good. these are guys who should be statistical no-brainers (well, for the most part). and even in the rosiest scenario, where you get 2 of these guys in each year (say bagwell and biggio this year, piazza and maddux the next, and thomas and johnson the year after that, then you still have a ballot that has edgar martinez, larry walker, rafael palmeiro, barry bonds, roger clemens, sammy sosa, mike mussina, tom glavine, jeff kent, gary sheffield, and pedro martinez. that's 11 guys right there, on a ballot with a max of 10 votes. and there's depth behind these guys, too.

forget whether jack morris gets in or not, if they can't get some of these guys in on the first ballot, this ballot's gonna get real ugly, real quick.

1) What are the odds that nobody makes it this year? I think they're pretty high. We should not assume that Morris going to get the 8.5% he needs to go over the top.

2) If steroids were a non-issue, wouldn't this be the most awesome induction ceremony ever? Clemens, Sosa, Bonds, Biggio, and Piazza would be cruising in. Palmeiro would already be in, and McGwire probably would be, too. Schilling wouldn't get in this year, but he'd be teed up for a couple years from now. But the Clemens/Sosa/Bonds/Biggio/Piazza would be the greatest HOF class of our lifetimes, right?

3) Who will not get 5%? Does Bernie Williams get the boot? Does Dale Murphy get the boot? How about Don Mattingly? Mattingly got 17.6% of the vote last year. He's clearly not going in (nor should he) - if you are putting 10 people on your ballot, you're probably booting out a few people to whom you gave votes last year. It strikes me that Williams, Murphy, and Mattingly are the three most likely "victims" of this logjam.

The most likely guy to not get 5%? My money's on Sosa. As much as I love Sammy, and I think he belongs, that would be a nice result. Guy with over 600 HR is one and done because people suspect he took a substance that wasn't banned at the time.

Thanks for the reminder on Murphy. There are probably about 1 in 10 voters who have been voting for Murphy every year for the last 10 or 15 years. He's clearly not getting another 60% of the vote this year above his "base". Isn't a vote for Murphy truly the ultimate "wasted" vote this year?

3) Who will not get 5%? Does Bernie Williams get the boot? Does Dale Murphy get the boot? How about Don Mattingly? Mattingly got 17.6% of the vote last year. He's clearly not going in (nor should he) - if you are putting 10 people on your ballot, you're probably booting out a few people to whom you gave votes last year. It strikes me that Williams, Murphy, and Mattingly are the three most likely "victims" of this logjam.

Oh yeah, the 5% rule is gonna be "on steroids" the next few elections, slicing and icing hall-of-fame quality players every year.

I ran a little survey on another site and we came up with this top ten list of players who should still be on the ballot (retired since 1993):

Has there been polling on this? My intuition is that it's wrong. It seems likely that a small majority of BBWAA voters don't want them in, but I'm skeptical it's a majority of fans.

I would say the black guy on that list(Bonds) a majority of the fans want to keep out. The good old white boy(Clemens) would probably do less than 50% keep him out of the hall due to him having a large support from three (two and a half at least) baseball markets. I ultimately agree with you that it's the writers who are making this a story more than the casual fans though. I just don't see that many people who care, and from my experience, the ones who do care and aren't serious baseball fans, are Pete Rose in the hof supporters.

1) What are the odds that nobody makes it this year? I think they're pretty high. We should not assume that Morris going to get the 8.5% he needs to go over the top.

This is the advantage of the hof not publishing the ballots, if no one makes the cut, whoever is closest will magically get knocked up to the barely over line. In this economy, there is no way that the hof will go a year without putting some living player into the hof.

This is the advantage of the hof not publishing the ballots, if no one makes the cut, whoever is closest will magically get knocked up to the barely over line. In this economy, there is no way that the hof will go a year without putting some living player into the hof.

I don't mean to be critical, but do others on this thread believe this? I mean, I've never thought of it, but it is obviously possible. I mean, if the HOF took a goy who earned 15% of the vote, and said they got 75.8% or something, enough BBWAA voters would say they didn't vote for him that it would be fishy. But if Morris is at 73.2%, nobody would intuitively know. Also, I've been to induction ceremonies many times, and I've been to Cooperstown many other times during various points of the year (I went to college close by, and we'd sometimes get in the car on a whim and just go for an afternoon in February or something).

Let me say: If you've only been to Cooperstown on Induction Weekend, know that it is a completely different experience almost any other times of year. And if you go outside of the summer, it is a virtual ghost town for tourists - a pretty ghost town, a very pleasant ghost town, but there's nobody there. I think Induction Weekend is a really big deal to the local tourist economy, and if nobody gets in, that's a big deal. In fact, I would argue only Morris getting in would be pretty negative for the Hall's tourist concerns.

All that said - I believe 100% there is no funny business with ballots going on. How ironic would it be that the voters' desire to punish obvious first-ballot HOFers like Clemens and Bonds for cheating would cause those in charge of the process to cheat on the voting results...

The Hall's on record as approving of the voters' evaluations per the critiria, which calls for a lot of personal judgement. and which the voters have been applying vis-a-vis possible roid usage.. Evidently, the Hall itself doesn't want it stocked with a player later found to be a roider which has been the voters' judgement thus far. Should be fine with one guy getting in. One always seems to. Biggio or Morris...although neither would get my vote. Bagwell may well get in this year because it's 3 years and no evidence of roid use. At this point Bagwell should get in.

Eventually tho some player who's in the hall will be found to have juiced..then the floodgates should open. Bonds. et al.

What they should do is just stick a plaque on the entrance wall acknowledging the steroid era in general, and screw it (in).

Eventually tho some player who's in the hall will be found to have juiced..then the floodgates should open. Bonds. et al.

Not saying it can't happen, but that's a prediction that we've been hearing ever since the BALCO case broke. I somehow can't help but think that the wish is the father of the thought.

And who's going to spill the beans? Not any players who were actually there as first hand witnesses, if they haven't done so already. Certainly not an owner. A sportswriter who "knew"? Highly doubtful, unless he'd been diagnosed with a terminal disease. There seems to be this idea that "everyone knew" about steroid use, and perhaps that's true, but to date who's been ratted out by anyone other than Canseco?

Three other possibilities: A disgruntled wife or GF, a Greg Anderson slimeball who wants to cash in, or one of those Bornagain Christian conversions followed by a confession. I wouldn't bet the ranch on any of them.

Not saying it can't happen, but that's a prediction that we've been hearing ever since the BALCO case broke. I somehow can't help but think that the wish is the father of the thought.

It's not something that I would predict, but it is something I devoutly wish for.

And who's going to spill the beans? Not any players who were actually there as first hand witnesses, if they haven't done so already. Certainly not an owner. A sportswriter who "knew"? Highly doubtful, unless he'd been diagnosed with a terminal disease. There seems to be this idea that "everyone knew" about steroid use, and perhaps that's true, but to date who's been ratted out by anyone other than Canseco?

How about one of the high-profile known or assumed 'roiders? Clemens played with Biggio and Bagwell for a couple of years. If there are actual beans to be spilled on one or both of them after they've been inducted, isn't Roger a reasonably likely spiller? Seeing as it would be rather obviously beneficial to his case?

Not saying it can't happen, but that's a prediction that we've been hearing ever since the BALCO case broke. I somehow can't help but think that the wish is the father of the thought.

The arc of the story on steroids in baseball and its effect on the Hall etc. is a long one, and the top steroid era guys are going to be on the ballot for a long time. You will have a point if it hasn't happened by 2024 and Bonds isn't in. As of now, it is definitely a possibility.

What's the case against Biggio? He had as good a career as anyone on the ballot not named Bonds or Clemens.

1 - he was friends with ken caminiti
2 - he was on the same team as bagwell, who has been found guilty of shooting up because he lifted weight 10 hours a day
3 - 5-9 guys who weigh 160 can't hit home runs
4 - he played with roger clemens, who joined the team AFTER drug testing was in place and therefore roger taught biggio how to shoot up which is why biggio hit more home runs that year - had nothing to do with changing his swing
5 - he needed an interpreter when he talked to wandy rodriguez. needing an interpreter = drug shooter

And who's going to spill the beans? Not any players who were actually there as first hand witnesses, if they haven't done so already. Certainly not an owner. A sportswriter who "knew"? Highly doubtful, unless he'd been diagnosed with a terminal disease. There seems to be this idea that "everyone knew" about steroid use, and perhaps that's true, but to date who's been ratted out by anyone other than Canseco?

How about one of the high-profile known or assumed 'roiders? Clemens played with Biggio and Bagwell for a couple of years. If there are actual beans to be spilled on one or both of them after they've been inducted, isn't Roger a reasonably likely spiller? Seeing as it would be rather obviously beneficial to his case?

Sure, if Roger is clean, if he's holding some kind of grudge against Biggio and/ or Bagwell, and if he actually witnessed either Biggio or Bagwell in the act of juicing. I've already granted the first supposition, but I wouldn't be betting on the other two if I were you.

----------------------------------------------------

Not saying it can't happen, but that's a prediction that we've been hearing ever since the BALCO case broke. I somehow can't help but think that the wish is the father of the thought.

The arc of the story on steroids in baseball and its effect on the Hall etc. is a long one, and the top steroid era guys are going to be on the ballot for a long time. You will have a point if it hasn't happened by 2024 and Bonds isn't in. As of now, it is definitely a possibility.

Robin, anything's possible, but in the real world who's likely to out whom?

No player who wasn't directly observed juicing is likely to be directly accused by a former teammate on the basis of rumor. Not only would this violate every known clubhouse code, but the instant demand for independent verification could quickly lead to a most embarrassing backdown on the part of the accuser.

And the same point holds for anyone else: Trainers, ex-GF's, former bookies, etc. Anyone looking to make a serious accusation of juicing had better have evidence more substantial than bacne or cap size if he doesn't want to risk a rather mighty backlash, if it involves a player already inducted.

And since we're talking about an already-inducted player, where's the leverage here? If some quack accuses Bagwell and quickly backs down, you're still going to see a residual effect on morons like Gumbell and their camp followers in the BBWAA, who have the power to make their McCarthyite reasoning actually harm a player's chances.

But if a player is already in, then what effect will a groundless accusation have? About as much effect as the sort of BS that clowns like "What about greenies?" Ray and his fellow fools here keep throwing out against Hank Aaron----i.e., none at all. Their entire "case" rests upon the acceptance of their greenies = steroids comparison, which to date is a distinctly minority POV.

And if you're talking about a player who actually did juice, then you've still got the problem of providing physical evidence, or the problem of finding a first hand witness to the act who's kept silent up to now, but who for some whatever reason decides to spill the beans long after the time it could have any effect on the HoF voting. As I asked above, where's the reward here? And what's the actual likelihood of any of this ever taking place outside of the wet dreams of some frustrated and outraged Barry Bonds supporters?

Robin, anything's possible, but in the real world who's likely to out whom?

I think the most likely scenario is a player "outing" himself. Many people, as they age, tend to want to "come clean" about some stuff in their lives, for a variety of reasons. The "clubhouse code" wouldn't be in effect for a retired guy confessing; he wouldn't be hurting anyone else.

I am neither hoping for it nor not hoping for it; I am one of those annoying faux-above-it-all rubber-neckers when it comes to HOF debates since (other than wanting Barry Larkin to get in), I find it interesting without being that engaged emotionally in it. But I think there is a pretty good chance that a guy outs himself in the next ten years.

Well, like I said at the time, I really thought that the BBWAA might deal with him the way that they have with Alan Trammell. I was glad to be wrong, but I still think that Trammell should have gotten more support.

My prediction is that the player who will confess to PED use (specifically, HGH) after being inducted into the HOF is Pettitte.

After which 90% of sportswriters will be shocked.

Nice bit of dry humor there. Of course Pettitte's already admitted HGH use, and he's unlikely to ever get into the HoF as a result, but it's still a nice double barreled snark on your part.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Robin, anything's possible, but in the real world who's likely to out whom?

I think the most likely scenario is a player "outing" himself. Many people, as they age, tend to want to "come clean" about some stuff in their lives, for a variety of reasons. The "clubhouse code" wouldn't be in effect for a retired guy confessing; he wouldn't be hurting anyone else.

The last unprompted** post facto full confession of serious cheating I can recall from a retired player was when non-HoFer Preacher Roe confessed to using a spitball as his money pitch. That was 57 years ago. A few others have coyly alluded to violations in the context of a full biography, but not as the main focus of their story, and no prominent player other than Canseco has ever spontaneously confessed to anything as serious as steroids.

**Meaning out of the blue, with no great public pressure to confess.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Not only would this violate every known clubhouse code, but the instant demand for independent verification could quickly lead to a most embarrassing backdown on the part of the accuser.

It didn't seem to hurt sudden Congressional wallflower Curt "please subpoena me so I can hem and haw" Schilling.

Which turned out to be a perfect example of "a most embarrassing backdown," wouldn't you say? All of Schilling's accusations have been based on assumptions and hearsay, not on any concrete knowledge that he's been willing to reveal.

The last unprompted** post facto full confession of serious cheating I can recall from a retired player was when non-HoFer Preacher Roe confessed to using a spitball as his money pitch. That was 57 years ago. A few others have coyly alluded to violations in the context of a full biography, but not as the main focus of their story, and no prominent player other than Canseco has ever spontaneously confessed to anything as serious as steroids.

Doesn't Gaylord fit here? I recall watching an interview with him 15 years ago or so where he showed/explained step by step how he cheated.

Anyway, what you're missing above is that the vast majority of players don't think steroids use is "cheating" at all. So the player wouldn't be confessing to "cheating" as such.

The last unprompted** post facto full confession of serious cheating I can recall from a retired player was when non-HoFer Preacher Roe confessed to using a spitball as his money pitch. That was 57 years ago. A few others have coyly alluded to violations in the context of a full biography, but not as the main focus of their story, and no prominent player other than Canseco has ever spontaneously confessed to anything as serious as steroids.

Well, you are the one who has argued that steroids are totally different than anything else in terms of cheating, and if that is the case, then it seems a little counterintuitive to argue that we should look to player confessions about spitballs as precedent for how the steroids drama will play out. The same idea applies to greenies. ISTM that a player seeing steroids Ray's way (no biggie, not cheating, everyone was doing it) would have no problem, and it is also possible that a guy who got in the HOF knowing that he did the same thing Bonds and Clemens will be probably be excluded for supposedly doing might say to himself, "I need to get out in front on this now" if Bonds and Clemens don't get in over the next few years.

And who's going to spill the beans? Not any players who were actually there as first hand witnesses, if they haven't done so already. Certainly not an owner. A sportswriter who "knew"? Highly doubtful, unless he'd been diagnosed with a terminal disease. There seems to be this idea that "everyone knew" about steroid use, and perhaps that's true, but to date who's been ratted out by anyone other than Canseco?

Just gotta say, if Deep Throat can be discovered, the first steroid user in the Hall WILL be discovered.

Where’s my bloody Cortexiphan?! I need an alternate universe!

Hey, I just started watching this show!

It should be in my wheelhouse, but I've never made it past the third season. Dunno why.

It should be in my wheelhouse, but I've never made it past the third season. Dunno why.

fringe is one of my favorite shows, but unlike every other show that i say that about (archer, justified, doctor who, the thick of it), i can't really say it's great television. i like the concept and the weirdness and the serialized nature of the show, but it just always seems to leave me wanting more. and not always in the good way.

assuming that this really is its last season, i'm gonna miss it when it's gone.

The last unprompted** post facto full confession of serious cheating I can recall from a retired player was when non-HoFer Preacher Roe confessed to using a spitball as his money pitch. That was 57 years ago. A few others have coyly alluded to violations in the context of a full biography, but not as the main focus of their story, and no prominent player other than Canseco has ever spontaneously confessed to anything as serious as steroids.

Doesn't Gaylord fit here? I recall watching an interview with him 15 years ago or so where he showed/explained step by step how he cheated.

Roe's paid confession came out when he'd just retired and was a big deal for a few weeks. A "reformed" Perry wrote "an autobiographical confession" in mid-career where he described his prior spitter use but said he'd since been "reformed". I'm sure he's talked about it since his HoF induction 20+ years ago, but given that about three people in the world actually care about spitballs, to equate that sort of humorous confession with what would greet (say) a steroid confession by Cal Ripken or Paul Molitor is to show just how little you understand the mores of baseball. You might want to talk to Mark McGwire if you want to supplement your knowledge.

Anyway, what you're missing above is that the vast majority of players don't think steroids use is "cheating" at all. So the player wouldn't be confessing to "cheating" as such.

I'm sure that you could dig up an old Dean Chambers poll that backs you up on that one. If you can't locate it, just ask Joe.

----------------------------------------------

Well, you are the one who has argued that steroids are totally different than anything else in terms of cheating, and if that is the case, then it seems a little counterintuitive to argue that we should look to player confessions about spitballs as precedent for how the steroids drama will play out. The same idea applies to greenies. ISTM that a player seeing steroids Ray's way (no biggie, not cheating, everyone was doing it) would have no problem, and it is also possible that a guy who got in the HOF knowing that he did the same thing Bonds and Clemens will be probably be excluded for supposedly doing might say to himself, "I need to get out in front on this now" if Bonds and Clemens don't get in over the next few years.

You're describing a hypothetical scenario in three stages:

1. Player A keeps mum about his own juicing

2. Player A then gets elected to the Hall of Fame

3. Player A then gets conscience-stricken because Player Bonds, who is obviously way more statistically qualified than he was, is being blackballed for doing the same thing that he did.

4. Tortured by guilt, and maybe even tempted by the possibility of a fat book contract, Player A substitutes ESPN for his parish priest, and breaks down in tears and admits to the whole nine yards.

Sounds great, but don't hold your breath. First of all, just imagine the media reaction. Not to Player A's own reputation, since presumably he'll have figured that out prior to his confession, but to his own teammates. Given what we know about the nature of modern media, the first 500 questions Player A is likely to be bombarded with is "WHO ELSE? GIVE US SOME NAMES."

At that point, Player A will face a simply lovely choice: Either rat out his guilty teammates, or have the media start speculating about his clean teammates to a degree that they hadn't been before. That'd sure make him popular with those guys.

Feel free to speculate about a scenario like this, but again, I wouldn't put much money on it. Once again, where's the upside? And how does it compare to the downside? You don't seem to have considered that. And who, in your opinion, would be the likely candidates to play the role?

----------------------------------------------

Just gotta say, if Deep Throat can be discovered, the first steroid user in the Hall WILL be discovered.

Andy, using a spitter is cheating, and so we have a HOFer who cheated, and so we have cheaters in the HOF, so there's no reason not to put steroids players in, who (I would argue) didn't even cheat, but whatever.

Sure, if Roger is clean, if he's holding some kind of grudge against Biggio and/ or Bagwell, and if he actually witnessed either Biggio or Bagwell in the act of juicing. I've already granted the first supposition, but I wouldn't be betting on the other two if I were you.

Not that it matters much in the world of baseless speculation, but in my hypothetical Clemens is dirty and holds no grudges, but did actually witness someone doing something. It seems to me that if that someone gets in, Roger just might come out with some sort of "I don't give a crap about your precious HOF, but you sanctimonious ######## just elected somebody who did exactly what you keep writing all your sanctimonious crap about." The most risky assumption in this scenario is that Roger knows what sanctimonious means, but he could always use a ghost writer.

i like the concept and the weirdness and the serialized nature of the show, but it just always seems to leave me wanting more. and not always in the good way.

Same here, and I'm not sure why. It has all the features of that solid, older show, The Night Stalker, but with a much more (to me) attractive lead; it takes better advantage of its ensemble cast, which includes some real actors, and not just retreads like Simon Oakland, AND it gathers together the various episodes under larger themes and plots, many of which are genuinely engaging. Oh, and Anna Torv (who, strangely, is English). And did I mention Anna Torv?

My prediction is that the player who will confess to PED use (specifically, HGH) after being inducted into the HOF is Pettitte.

Of course Pettitte's already admitted HGH use, and he's unlikely to ever get into the HoF as a result, but it's still a nice double barreled snark on your part.

The problem here, of course, is that Pettitte is a long-shot on the merits.

Well, that too, but it'd be relatively easy for a generic MSM writer to build a plausible narrative around his longevity and his postseason wins for a clean Andy Pettitte. Just look at what's been done for Jack Morris. OTOH it'll be a lot harder to convince hardline writers of that narrative when it's used to describe the real Andy Pettitte.

---------------------------------------

Andy, using a spitter is cheating, and so we have a HOFer who cheated, and so we have cheaters in the HOF, so there's no reason not to put steroids players in, who (I would argue) didn't even cheat, but whatever.

Of course the only way that theory works is if you sneak a few hundred writers into the BBWAA who share your views on the equation of steroids cheating with spitballs cheating. Good luck with that one. Once again, you exist in a hermetically sealed bubble when it comes to acknowledging any perspectives other than your own.

---------------------------------------

Sure, if Roger is clean, if he's holding some kind of grudge against Biggio and/ or Bagwell, and if he actually witnessed either Biggio or Bagwell in the act of juicing. I've already granted the first supposition, but I wouldn't be betting on the other two if I were you.

Not that it matters much in the world of baseless speculation, but in my hypothetical Clemens is dirty and holds no grudges, but did actually witness someone doing something. It seems to me that if that someone gets in, Roger just might come out with some sort of "I don't give a crap about your precious HOF, but you sanctimonious ######## just elected somebody who did exactly what you keep writing all your sanctimonious crap about." The most risky assumption in this scenario is that Roger knows what sanctimonious means, but he could always use a ghost writer.

Okay, this has at least the ring of truthiness if not real world likelihood, and I do like that last line. Too bad Dan Daniel has long gone to his reward, because in his many interviews with ballplayers, every one of them spoke with an easy eloquence that straddled the line between Churchill and Abraham Lincoln. He could have done wonders with Clemens.

Andy, since you don't want Bonds in Cooperstown, you have an emotional investment in the above scenario not happening, but I don't have an equivalent investment in it happening. So I'd appreciate it you would tone down the "don't hold your breath" and "tortured by guilt" stuff. Like I said, this is not a big deal to me. It is just something to talk about.

As far as the "downside", sure, there is one. OTOH, the media like confessions, and this hypothetical guy would get some credit for coming forward, albeit "too late." As far as media guys hounding him to death about his teammates--I am skeptical. That may have happened with McGwire and Rodriguez, but if it has been a big issue, I missed it. And, let's face it, not that many people really care about which marginal guys or mid-level guys used back in the 1990s and early 2000s. People who care care mostly about:

Now
Hall of Famers or potential Hall of Famers

Knowing stuff about Paul LoDuca using back in 1999 in sort of fun and gossipy for fans and media, but I don't think a player saying, "I am not going to talk about anyone else--just myself" would get paparazzi'd to death by PED hawks in the MSM.

As far as who it could be--any number of players. I think a lot of guys were using PEDs at that time, including HOF-level guys.

Andy, using a spitter is cheating, and so we have a HOFer who cheated, and so we have cheaters in the HOF

The spitball is quite a bit different. It was openly allowed for a good 30 to 40 years, and then grandfathered pitchers were allowed until 1934. Amphetamines have some of the same features. They were actually legal, and widely prescribed in the US in the 50's and 60's.

In those eras, nobody needed to hide using a spitter, or amps, and that affects the sport's culture towards them. Attitudes towards things that were perfectly legal, and then banned, are going to be different than attitudes towards something that was never legal.

Andy, since you don't want Bonds in Cooperstown, you have an emotional investment in the above scenario not happening, but I don't have an equivalent investment in it happening. So I'd appreciate it you would tone down the "don't hold your breath" and "tortured by guilt" stuff. Like I said, this is not a big deal to me. It is just something to talk about.

Robin, I'm against any known juicer getting into the HoF, but if it came down to cases, I'd rather have Bonds go in than any of the others, certainly over McGwire or A-Rod. And unlike all the people I've seen here who've said that the Hall of Fame is worthless without Bonds & Co. inside the plaque room, I've never made any such counterclaim. I've ALWAYS said that I'd respect whatever decision the writers made, and I don't mean that in any grudging sense. If Bonds ever were to get in---and he well might---that would represent a wholly legitimate evolution of a consensus about the nature of cheating and the meaning of the offensive surge of the "steroid era," and I certainly wouldn't be able to complain that "my" side hadn't gotten a fair hearing.

And I'm skeptical about your little scenario for the simple reason that I don't think it'll happen. I often express skepticism on any number of subjects in terms like "I wouldn't bet on it", and I'm sorry if that seems to offend you.

2 - he was on the same team as bagwell, who has been found guilty of shooting up because he lifted weight 10 hours a day

This is funny. Sad, because true, but funny. You bust your hump in a certain way to become the best player you can possibly be, and THAT'S why you have trouble getting into the Hall of Fame.

And yet this is the inevitable result of the culture of silence among MLB players. If players, including those who didn't use, are doing everything in their power to prevent us learning about who did and didn't use, can they really complain when voters make decisions based on that ignorance?

80. Slivers of Maranville (SdeB) Posted: December 02, 2012 at 02:09 PM (#4314599)
2 - he was on the same team as bagwell, who has been found guilty of shooting up because he lifted weight 10 hours a day

This is funny. Sad, because true, but funny. You bust your hump in a certain way to become the best player you can possibly be, and THAT'S why you have trouble getting into the Hall of Fame.

And yet this is the inevitable result of the culture of silence among MLB players. If players, including those who didn't use, are doing everything in their power to prevent us learning about who did and didn't use, can they really complain when voters make decisions based on that ignorance?

- you think the media cares if nobody reliever X used steroids? you see the enormous outrage/fury over freddy galvis, jc romero, even bartolo colon.

the media wants SCANDAL!!! and you can't have SCANDAL!!! unless it is all about someone who is pedro/clemens/maddux/unit type great.

what would be the reason that player X would rat out any teammate he shared needles/drugs with? even the supposedly seriously steroid hater type guys like rick helling and kenny rogers have not yet outed anyone. if they wanted their sons (if they have any) to play baseball, it wouldn't help them to be known as a son of a rat. and i don't see supposed steroid hater curt schilling outing all those guys he played with on the 93 phils. he hasn't even confirmed that dykstra shot up.

and if you don't KNOW for absolute certain that someone shot up, you would be destroying his reputation by saying - i think teammate X is an unconvicted felon and he possessed a 10 year prison sentence amount of drug. but i never saw him use it, i just suspect he did.

oh yeah
and even if someone DID come out, who says that what he did will be any help judging what steroids do to "enhance" performance. paxton crawford came out, said he used roids and that they destroyed his arm and career. that story got buried right quick.

the media wants some really great hitter to come out and say - i was a 10 year old girl without steroids, which is the only reason i was able to play ML baseball AND HIT HOME RUNS.

how many of the players in the 50s and 60s (and 70s and 80s) do you suppose had a prescription for the greenies they were using?

Very few. But that's not the point. I'm talking about cultural acceptance affecting what's perceived as "cheating", not legality.

Drs. were handing out amps to housewives like candy. It was viewed as a nothing drug in the culture. The "Red Bull" of its era. So, players could use openly, and no one cared, or viewed it as cheating.

It's like Babe Ruth drinking beer before/during games (in the opposite, performance hindering direction). If Babe was shooting up morphine in the clubhouse, someone would have cared, but b/c he was just boozing, and everyone back then drank like a fish, no one really cared.

Drs. were handing out amps to housewives like candy. It was viewed as a nothing drug in the culture. The "Red Bull" of its era. So, players could use openly, and no one cared, or viewed it as cheating.

Right, right, right, right and right. And for all the talk about steroids being so commonplace during the "steroid era", when has there ever been any evidence, or even a claim, of steroids being left casually around clubhouses, free for the taking?

It's like Babe Ruth drinking beer before/during games (in the opposite, performance hindering direction). If Babe was shooting up morphine in the clubhouse, someone would have cared, but b/c he was just boozing, and everyone back then drank like a fish, no one really cared.

And yet in every other steroids thread, someone will inevitably bring up Ruth's alleged fondness for "performance enhancing" goat testicles, as some sort of a comparison to steroids.

it's actually peter bishop's show. the timeline started with him being kidnapped from "their side", and it now seems to be ending with him as the guy who saves the present from the future.

I'm okay with the radical plot-direction they've gone with this (final) season, but I think the writing--the dialogue in particular--has been abysmal. Keep meaning to check to see if they brought new writers on board.

Amphetamines were so commonplace and part of the housewife culture that athletes perjured themselves in court to avoid admitting use, and the people in charge of the sport tried to quash discussion about these nothing drugs.

Amphetamines were so commonplace and part of the housewife culture that athletes perjured themselves in court to avoid admitting use, and the people in charge of the sport tried to quash discussion about these nothing drugs.

All the while allowing them to be openly dispensed in clubhouses, but whatever. Right now I'm more interested in Repoz's upcoming ballot updates than in rehashing the same old arguments for the umpteenth time. I'm pretty sure by this time we know what we all think about steroids and everything else relating to PEDs, and I don't see anyone's mind being changed beyond a few of us now saying we'd vote for Clemens in the aftermath of the trial.

Hey, I wonder if Joe can drop by to unskew those updates, just to liven things up. Wonder what the party breakdown is within the BBWAA---are they part of the great liberal media conspiracy?

Wonder what the party breakdown is within the BBWAA---are they part of the great liberal media conspiracy?

C'mon, Andy, the most conservative elements in this country are 100% ANTI analyzing anything with statistical mathematical models or any kind of truly scientific research - just ask Nate. This is why they think the Earth is only 9000 years old. This is why many BBWAA members will vote for Jack Morris but won't vote for Alan Trammell. They are truly afraid of anything math-related. They are definitely not part of the "liberal bias" in media.